Hi Rana
(I am not dissing anyone. I question agreement with such views (BTW you will see that Mr Rooney has strenuously disavowed ANY similarity to his own views on these topics, and would seriously sue if he could find the source.) in a forum that is set up to be a space where differences from the 'norm' can be explored.
Quote from: Rana on June 07, 2006, 08:58:38 AM
I will also say that I have a tremendous respect for Terri Gene, and what she stands for. I think you are misrepresenting her and are unfair to her.
and HOW is directly quoting someone a misrepresentation in any way? That is illogical. At least. I indicated that an agreement with certain sentiments particularly in the context here was a bit disturbing to me.)
Here's what it is:
The White Man is on a severe defensive stance. (The world is changing. The world needs to change.) Such things as Jet magazine exist to specifically empower a people (and make a buck off their success, you betcha) that has been SEVERELY disempowered in the past, and will bear the scars of, hello? slavery. for a long long long long time to come.
(Just as I will bear the scars of having lived in a mixture of sexualities and identities for a little while to come, as well.)
Have you personally ever been denied status or privelege due to being a white person? DIDN'T THINK SO.
We do not allow persons to come here and state their anti-attitude and diss us here at this forum, rule #9. Out of the same impulse to 'find our own peeps' and be comfortable among.
Now are we really TRULY discriminatory creatures here at Susan's? Compared to slaveowners.
another EG: PBS has been dramatically enfiltrated by 'right-thinking' individuals. That are taking steps to change the whole approach there. (need to create, you know, some
balance.)
The powers that be in this society are generally, you know, the POWERS THAT BE.
The press, the media, et al, sometimes NEEDS to take a non-advocacy stance, or even? Dare I say it? an advocational stance FOR THE OTHER SIDE. That addresses an IMBALANCE.
People in US and OZ should embrace the fact that
certain values are under attack.
I don't really know the specifics on the founding of Australia, but this country?
Founded by a revolution. VALUES UNDER ATTACK. Violent attack.
Quote from: Rana on June 07, 2006, 08:58:38 AM
I just ask you as a citizen of a democratic nation - to look at each point & consider why they seem to strike a chord in the feelings of many people
Rana
I have looked at it Rana.
FEAR AND LOATHING.
Tends to strike a chord.
In many people?
What kinds of people?
What kinds of people are "struck by":
"I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes,
a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of
fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak
English!
Because that is so much in tune with their world view?
(is this one of the "values Americans and Australians find so important" that's under attack? Speaking proper English? Well in OZ
YMMV , but that's a joke really innit?)
It is admittedly amusing in a coarse way I'll grant you that.
BUT IT INDICATES INTOLERANCE OF DIFFERENCES. Is Australia a melting pot, or no?
USA is. That is it's greatest strength in my opinion.
Now I may have an attitude that comes from being disenfranchised. I'll own that.
You may have an attitude that stems from the opposite.
Posted at: June 07, 2006, 07:42:26 AM
What I find 'so' offensive is not that these type of remarks are in your face at all. They are far more subtle than you can see, I fear.
The unreasonable just next to eminently reasonable "EG: girls belong in the Girl Scouts." ":70% = 70%"
The use of humour to virally infect. The misuse of the rhythm and tone of Mr Rooney, who btw I find generally quite amusing.
I am
so not politically correct. Anyone that has read me knows that.
If you go around calling yourself a European-Australian, and someone finds that a point to take issue with, it's absurd, right*?
You would be embracing your Germanic or whatever heritage.
here's some pertinent history:
African Americans were known almost strictly as ->-bleeped-<-s for a long time, and that's not gone away.
(in the 1960's during the key years of the Civil Rights struggle they were generally called Negroes. President Johnson never got a handle on that sound, it was NIG-ras. Lenny Bruce had a funny routine on it. And the whole thing is pretty funny.

)
They were sold into slavery by other Africans over the centuries to Euro-centric places like the burgeoning United States.
Note that their heritage is, ahem, African. They are confounding by hyphenating with "American", embracing both?
Problematic to express? State your objections.
FEAR AND LOATHING
(* this is precisely what I am indicating by the subtle use of humor, it
is absurd, so it's funny. BUT: the person is stating that the whole "African-American" (he prefers
->-bleeped-<-, I can tell you that) thing pisses him off.)
Posted at: June 07, 2006, 08:10:27 AM
And finally I would have just considered it pretty much lite reading but for the fact I saw that a person here with a reputation here of: let's see 56, in agreement in principle with nearly every word.
AND, as you agree with her agreement, or whatever;
and I pointed out (in response to the original poster, Stephanie who had not noticed any agreement with the post), here it is, this person agrees with this stuff,
HOW DID I DISPESPECT? by expressing my view on it?
By disagreeing?
It isn't out of line. It simply is not.